I've seen channel strips in numerous studio's and was wondering what are the advantages of using that as opposed to using one in a DAW ? Is a Presonus Channel Strip for example faster or easier than using a stock EQ or Compressor in Logic or Pro Tools ? Is the quality better in hardware channel strips such as a Presonus as opposed to stock mixing plugins in a DAW ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mixing using Channel Strips Vs. DAW Stock Plugins
- Thread starter Jortiz7
- Start date
MadAnthony81
New member
I've seen channel strips in numerous studio's and was wondering what are the advantages of using that as opposed to using one in a DAW ? Is a Presonus Channel Strip for example faster or easier than using a stock EQ or Compressor in Logic or Pro Tools ? Is the quality better in hardware channel strips such as a Presonus as opposed to stock mixing plugins in a DAW ?
In my Ableton Live the Ableton Live plugins are certainly inferior. But I do have good news!
I love my Waves.com plug ins. I find them convincingly good versions of true analog. All the best wrapped up into one. I love my GTR3 too! Go have a listen to there videos! Quite invigorating and inspiring to see how great they sound!
God Bless, keeo the peace. Opposite of evil,
Anthony Lowery
Are you talking about hardware channel strips or vst channel strips?
If you're talking about hardware:
People use hardware because to experienced ears they sound a little bit better than their vst counterparts.
When I get vocals to mix I pass tracks one at time through my vocal strip to get the initial tone and grit I want, then tweak and perfect everything in the box from then on.
If you're talking about vst:
Its more convenient to open one plugin with a gate, eq, and compressor than it is switching between three.
Also some better emulate analog desks since the signal passes through matching components.
If you're talking about hardware:
People use hardware because to experienced ears they sound a little bit better than their vst counterparts.
When I get vocals to mix I pass tracks one at time through my vocal strip to get the initial tone and grit I want, then tweak and perfect everything in the box from then on.
If you're talking about vst:
Its more convenient to open one plugin with a gate, eq, and compressor than it is switching between three.
Also some better emulate analog desks since the signal passes through matching components.
hollandturbine
New member
The main practical advantage has to do with using limiters to control excessive levels something which ain't going to work with a latent plugin after the audio has already been clipped to smithereens on the way in...you know, before it could get to said plugin.
The main practical advantage has to do with using limiters to control excessive levels something which ain't going to work with a latent plugin after the audio has already been clipped to smithereens on the way in...you know, before it could get to said plugin.
You have it in reverse.
Hardware limiters may sound better but they are inferior to vst limiters when it comes to suppressing peaks, especially while mastering, due to the fact that their ceilings are prone to vary over time. Anybody that masters with hardware limiters feeds into a digital limiter to ensure no clipping occurs on export.
Latency is a good thing when suppressing peaks because the plugin has more time to calculate the best way to tackle the peak while with hardware, the audio has passed by. Some vst limiters even have an additional latency parameter called "look-ahead" (eg. Fabfilter Pro-L).
A good example of how latency improves response is with live tv broadcasting, where the feed is delayed 5-10 seconds so they can accurately decide whether or not to censor something.
Last edited:
hollandturbine
New member
You have it in reverse.
Hardware limiters may sound better but they are inferior to vst limiters when it comes to suppressing peaks, especially while mastering, due to the fact that their ceilings are prone to vary over time. Anybody that masters with hardware limiters feeds into a digital limiter to ensure no clipping occurs on export.
Latency is a good thing when suppressing peaks because the plugin has more time to calculate the best way to tackle the peak while with hardware, the audio has passed by. Some vst limiters even have an additional latency parameter called "look-ahead" (eg. Fabfilter Pro-L).
A good example of how latency improves response is with live tv broadcasting, where the feed is delayed 5-10 seconds so they can accurately decide whether or not to censor something.
No I don't have it in reverse at all because what I was talking about is the practical advantage of using a hardware channel strip and limiter on the way in.
MadAnthony81
New member
well? HAs anyone used Waves? Their stuff seems awesome.